september 2010 vogue

images may 2010 vogue cover.

Numéro Tokyo September 2010:

GCapplicant

07-14 09:26 AM

Why is EB3 India unhappy?

The impression I am getting from all posts is that EB3 is unhappy because EB2 got 2 year advancement in dates. EB3 is unhappy not because of their own retrogression but because someone else is happy being current.

The reason is not justified. EB3 should be unhappy for its own retrogression and not because someone else in EB2 is current. I see a lot of EB3India guys waking up now to the reality and protesting just because EB2 is getting greencads. This approach is wrong. Where were all of you all these months when IV was asking letters for admin fixes? A lot of us were busy enjoying our EADs and suddenly everyone is woken up. Where were all these guys when visa bulletin came every month and dates did not move?

I would support an action item for us EB3 folks only when it is based on the genuine reasons of EB retrogression. If it is based on the reason of EB2 getting greencards and EB3 not getting greencards, it is a wrong immature reason and USCIS or any authority capable of decision making will not like it.

EAD cannot give a solution.We knew that from day 1 .EB3 is unhappy because we havnt got any movement.Will any EB2 here support our cause.I am seeing forums where they have alreday started tracking their LUD's.Fine...Human mentality is when they are out of the problem nobody will turn back.Just becoz we are making fuss out of here there are one or two getting ready to point on us that we are unhappy.How do you expect us to be happy?

How long we have to wait?

3 solid years I was waiting for my 45 day letter then it took 6 months to get my labor approval.atleast if it had moved same like EB2 we can again sit and watch the show.

Fine ,even I feel , this EB2 movement if taken as a possitive movement ,I can expect EB3 ROW to be current by Oct 2008.When they interpret the spillover will that help EB3 single state to move. Sometimes I do feel this has been done to fail the bills and break the team effort by IV-see how we are questioning ourselves-right? but will any Eb2 care for us-its our mistake to apply in EB3 and beleiving the old tradition.

How many of us are there since 2001 nov.any answer.How long can we wait?its impossible.

wallpaper Numéro Tokyo September 2010:

Vogue Spain September 2010

mariner5555

04-13 12:17 AM

agree with Jung.lee. if you are in california or florida ..it definitely makes sense to wait. MSN reported that lot of people are just walking away .. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/HomeFinancing/HomeownersWhoJustWalkAway.aspx ------- Ismael, 37, still lives in his four-bedroom house in Menifee, Calif., for now. But he is ready to leave.

"The situation I am in is really ugly," said Ismael, who asked that his last name be omitted. "It's better for me to walk away and leave the stress and everything that is involved in this home. I am about 95% sure I am walking away."

The single parent of a 3-year-old, Ismael bought his $370,000 home in 2005 for no money down, qualifying on his mid-$40,000s salary. (That's about triple what he might have qualified for under more traditional lending guidelines used in MSN Money's Housing Affordability Calculator.) He was paying $2,700 a month for an adjustable 8.25% loan. Photo by Joseph A. Garcia

Then he and his girlfriend split up, reducing his household income to a single paycheck at the same time the mortgage was adjusting upward. To add to his struggles, the value of his house dropped by $145,000.

Yadira Maga�a, left, with her children Lizeth Torres, 13, and Conrad Torres III, 10, have lived at her mother's Oxnard, Calif., home since walking away from their previous residence in 2007. Yadira Maga�a, a medical biller in her early 30s in Oxnard, Calif., has a similar story. She walked away from her $585,000 home in June 2007. When she bought it, Maga�a thought she had gotten a great deal. She made a $16,000 down payment on the house. But she lived there only eight months before her marriage collapsed.

She couldn't afford to pay the $4,500 monthly interest-only mortgage, plus taxes and insurance separately, on her own $50,000 income. So she and her two children moved into her mother's house.

September 2010 by

Refugee_New

01-07 09:30 AM

But why just Israel? Jordan and Egypt also got the slice of the pie. Why not fire rocket at them? Blame Israel just because it's the only non-muslim country in the region so they should pay?

Secondly, Hamas is this powerful today just because people of Palestian allowed them, supported them, elected them now why shy from facing the fallout?

It's sad and unfortunate that people are dying but they are dying because of their bad choices not Israel's so called "aggression".

Its because they are the one that occupies others land and murdering innocent civilians brutally under the guise of self defence.

2011 Vogue Spain September 2010

Vogue Spain September 2010

coolest_me

12-26 05:40 PM

Most americans have supported the attack on Afghanistan, where Osama is believed to hiding along with other terrorists. Most americans oppose war on Iraq, only because 100,000 american soldiers have died, Isince the Iraq war began and the economy is in shambles and Iraqis are a drain on the failing economy.

Can you post the source of this information please. I don't think its anywhere close 100,000. Its somewhere arnd 10000.

Thanks for all info about lobbying. The concept is good for changing laws based on public opinions but i think it's misused to pass the laws from businesses who have money. Like these big oil and automobile companies.. huh..

Thanks, Kris

2010 September 2010 by

may 2010 vogue cover.

reedandbamboo

10-01 09:15 PM

With all the uncertainties shrouding legal employment-based immigration reform (accompanied by talk of CIR) I've been looking into other high-skilled-immigrant-friendly countries.

Canada is starting to seem a far friendlier place for folks like us - relatively short wait times in the application queue, with no country-based quotas discriminating against applicants from countries like India and China.

the better way is to mention: 1) eb3 with earlier PD (before the end of 2005), the prevailing wage category was set higher, i.e, salary $60K fell in eb3 in 2004 but could be in eb2 in 2006. 2) LC based eb3 should be processed before perm based eb2, as the processing time for this step should be weighted to be evaluated in a bit fair way.

Very good point by alterego. This letter has a very striking problem in it.. one that can cause a huge problem for the people signing it. How can one say that they wanted to apply in EB2, but their lawyer said they should apply in EB3? As pointed out by pappu, Category is determined by job requirements and not the summary qualifications of the beneficiary. If you sign and say that the lawyer said you should apply in EB3/EB2/whatever, you are essentially stating that lawyers were involved in fabricating the job requirements. This is the same problem that is causing Fragomen clients to be investigated/audited. This is just an advice. I am prepared to support IV and the members in whatever we decide to follow.

hair Vogue Spain September 2010

Issued: September 2010

waitnwatch

05-24 12:17 PM

Did the brownback amendment pass with the CIR?

Please spend some time on this website....browse around, get acquainted, find the right threads and you will automatically find your answers. There is no 1800 number to call for assistance here............

Another backdoor lobbying technique (oops, I mean opportunity to celebrate and assist members of Congress) is to conspicuously contribute to a foundation that supports a congressional caucus.

Congress is filled with caucuses -- the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus, to name just a few. These are groups of like-minded lawmakers who meet regularly to discuss the subjects in which they have a common interest.

But, Washington being Washington, money quickly enters the equation. Some caucuses have foundations that help bankroll events.

The Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, for instance, sponsors gatherings in conjunction with the House co-chairmen of the Congressional Internet Caucus. Its "supporters group" includes dozens of tech firms that lobby Congress intensely, including Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

The advisory committee's next large event is an April 25 "Wireless Policy and Practices Dialogue." To pay the tab, its Web site lists "sponsorship opportunities," available for $500 to $5,000. A sampling (before it was apparently altered yesterday):

"Pens and other promotional items: Distribute pens with your logo to event attendees."

"Wi-Fi Hotspot: We will blanket the meeting area with wireless Internet access and include you as a promotional sponsor."

"Post-Dialogue VIP Dinner: End the conference on a high note and host a VIP event; choose from some of D.C.'s finest restaurants."

None of these constitute lobbying. Companies become sponsors "to prove that they are not only a thought leader in the space but also that they are a good corporate citizen," said Danielle Yates, the advisory committee's spokeswoman.

Oh.

hot Posted: October 13th, 2010 ˑ

British Vogue#39;s September 2010

unitednations

08-03 08:50 PM

Do you really think they would send the G-325a to the consulate? Do the consulates keep all the records? For how long? I heard from immigrationportal, somebody said they only send G-325a to the consulate if one applied a visa within one year prior to AOS application. Can anyone confirm this?

If they send everyone's G-325a form to the consulates, would that result in another backlog? Thanks.

How come the concern???

USCIS forms ask questions for a reason right? They ask for the visa number, consulate issued, etc. There are a lot of inter-agency checks. When people are stuck in background check; it is a whole host of things that they check. Most of what they check is confidential and isn't even public; they are more investigative techniques.

red dot for this post.... are you nuts or someone touched a raw nerve or you have lots of spare time to create controversies:confused:

Lets petition USCIS to scrap EB3 and send them home. Rolling_flood needs his GC real bad... We are unavailable today and will be U in 2010. you can have our 3k visa for your category.

Have you never jumped a line in your life, i bet you have.

We see it all the time, people will find ways to move ahead and so will you..nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is demeaning or ridiculing a group for you selfish needs...good luck with the law suit.. the least it will do is highlight problem our to a greater audience (Y).

tattoo Cover vogue september 2010

Sunday, 29 August 2010

sanju

12-19 09:56 PM

Its amazing to see how you are trying to force your views based on limited understanding on others. One good thing about religion? Now, I am not sure what religion means to you. To me, its the way I was brought up and the way people live. Having said that, the very upbringing instills the care for Health, Hygiene, Homes, Human Values, Harmony in Diversity etc. Long story short, help you become a humble and good social being.

Do you kow that "Science is still evolving. That is why we still discover and learn new things may be not every day, but periodically" Lets look at the core aspect, scientists once believed that Earth is flat, People as late at the time columbus discovered america believed that this is true. Slaves were even planning to kill the Columbus. Luckly for him, next morning they site the land which they thought as India but turned out to be America.

Scientists also believed that ATOM is the smallest particle. It changed due to development and research and broken down into P N & Electrons. Now it evolved into Quartz. It may change in future due to advancements.

How do you say that science is perfect and that is the truth? Well truth never changes, you and I wrote in science exams about the smallest particles and got marks but, now that answers are no longer valid.

Religion is the way we live, that is why there are more religions now. People live and believe in certain way becomes new religion or cult. Way we live influences the way we think and what we learn and believe. But, you know what, Fundamental aspect is Faith... superior to belief. It takes faith to accept somethings that are unknown. This is the core aspect that leads to scientific research and development. Which results in Technological advancement and life science evolve.

The way we live help us develop that aspect..faith in unknown things which in turn leads to research and facilitate all that related to science mentioned above. You know what I am talking about. Do not trash religion.. again I do not know what it means to you. it could mean different things to different people... Being religious is not bad at all. As you said, Just like science, People may choose to live wrong way :)

Science keeps evolving as we learn new things. Something that evolves, learn and change is alive. Religion never changes and its "guardians" do not want it to change. Something that never evolve, change even after learning new things is dead. That's the fundamental difference between religion and science even when the two compete with each other in the same sphere to answer different questions of mankind. You seems to suggest that it is bad and wrong for science to continue to get better and evolve?

Do you want to continue to follow a dead path or you think there is a possibility that there is more to this world than what is offered in the organized religion. I am not an atheist because I do believe in the Creator, our source. But I do not believe that any organized religion is the ONLY way to get there, as ALL religions preach. Rather, organized religions keep us away from getting there. All through out history, more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other aspect in nature. How is it possible that the path to our creator be so violent and deadly? The form of all recognized & organized religions practiced by over 99% of mankind is not the direction in which the "GODs" of these religions would want its followers to go. These religions were created by con artists and thugs long after the saints were gone.

I find it funny that you blame science for evolving and making new discoveries i.e. blaming every next generation to learn more than it predecessors. Why? Because the smallest known particle to man is no longer an atom???? And why do people need to lean their faith on a religion. If that faith is true in its entirety, what is the role of a religion? The fact that faith needs a religion on lean on, means that faith is not strong enough, and hence the case for elimination of religion from our way of life.

But you said one thing right. Religion is the way we live. So religion is not the spiritual structure we want to live by but the corrupt immoral wrong way we continue to live, because our parents and our parent's parents lived like that, so it has got to be the right way, right?

Faith could mean different things to different people because relationship with god is personal. But religion is laid out in the form in the "books". There is no difference in the way it says that "Jesus is the only son of God" or "Kafirs must be converted or killed" or "people of lower caste are there to serve Brahmans". There is no ambiguity to this. Now, if the faith is weak and it needs support to lean on a religion, then for some, faith and religion become synonyms. But faith and religion are in two different spheres and they are world apart, no matter how hard the religious right wants to try to obfuscate the meaning of "faith" and "religion".

I think if you one wants to eliminate or significantly reduce the number of H1B's or immigrant visas, then you can go ahead and label that person "anti-immigrant". I would be with you, saying that is definitely negative to America.

So far I haven't seen Lou Dobbs doing that though. All the time I watch the program I see that man bringing up legitimate concerns. Lou Dobbs is a hero for Americans. The fact is that in general, wages have been stagnated for the last five years. What I have seen Lou Dobbs bringing up is that H1B numbers should not be increased. Don't you think that is a fair and rational approach ? Tell me. Honestly, when I learned this provision that they want to increase H1B visas at 20% every year, that appeared quite of a stretch to me. Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?

"Folks, please be more rational and thoughtful please ?"

I think thoughtful and rational are NOT two words you would use to describe a Lou Dobbs broadcast. :D

Extremely one sided, hateful, demagogry, those words would be more accurate.

girlfriend Sunday, 29 August 2010

for Vogue Mexico September

rockstart

07-14 12:47 PM

USCIS has not changed any law they have re-interpreted an existing law which was unclear and some folks have said that CIS interprets laws based on inputs from congress to understand the intent behind the law. If you complain to CIS that you have changed law they will send you a polite reply that we do not make any laws we just implement it.

Bear this in mind. We are not opposing because EB2 is getting the number, we are opposing because USCIS arbitrarily changed the law -- without any legislative approval. Remember, they changed the OPT rules and they are now facing lawsuit.

hairstyles french vogue september

vogue september 2010 cover.

Macaca

04-08 07:55 AM

Some paras from Big money creates a new capital city (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/citizen-k-street/chapters/conclusion/index.html?hpid=topnews), By Robert G. Kaiser.

The upward arc of his career also delineates the way money has altered Washington during the last three decades. Money has transformed American politics, the career choices available here and even the landscape of the nation's capital. Raising money has become a key to electoral success, while spending taxpayers' dollars has helped incumbents get reelected.

Cassidy helped change Washington by shaping the culture of congressional earmarks that became so important in the last dozen years. Earmarks directly transfer the government's money to particular institutions and interests. He and his original partner helped invent the idea of lobbying for earmarked appropriations -- an idea that made Cassidy rich and fed a system of interdependence between lobbyists and Congress that thrives today.

In a blog he launched this year on his company's Web site, which he used to respond to installments of this series, Cassidy offered a warning about the future of lobbying: "Our profession is at a critical point where we can either embrace the constructive changes and reforms by Congress or we can seek out loopholes and continue the slippery slide into history along side the ranks of snake oil salesmen."

The first lobbying firms were established in the mid-'70s, just when Cassidy left McGovern's select committee on nutrition to begin his lobbying career. As the reach of the federal government extended into more corners of American life, opportunities for lobbyists proliferated. "The issues have multiplied," as Cassidy put it. Over these three decades the amount of money spent on Washington lobbying increased from tens of millions to billions a year. The number of free-lance lobbyists offering services to paying clients has grown from scores to thousands. Cassidy was one of the first to become a millionaire by lobbying; he now has plenty of company.

The term "lobbyist" does not do full justice to the complex status of today's most successful practitioners, who can play the roles of influence peddlers, campaign contributors and fundraisers, political advisers, restaurateurs, benefactors of local cultural and charitable institutions, country gentlemen and more. They have helped make greater Washington one of the wealthiest regions in America.

During his time in Washington, Cassidy said in one of many interviews he gave for these articles that the United States has experienced "a huge redistribution of income, and you can't blame just the Republicans, because it has happened through Democratic presidencies, and through Democratic and Republican congresses."

So the rich have gotten richer, the weak weaker? "I refuse to argue the obvious. ... It's just true, largely because they have less representation. You look at the movements out there, there is no anti-hunger movement, there is no committee on the Hill looking into poverty." Representation, of course, is Cassidy's line of work. It is as old as the republic, but only in Cassidy's time has lobbying become the biggest Washington industry.

This happened because lobbying works so well. Cassidy and his original partner, Kenneth Schlossberg, demonstrated its efficacy by devising ways to win earmarked appropriations from Congress for their clients, originally colleges, universities and medical centers. As Cassidy's clients began to win appropriations of $10 million, $15 million, $20 million and more in the 1980s, new lobbying firms emerged to compete with Cassidy. An increasing number of institutions and local governments looked for help to win earmarks of their own. The lobbying boom had begun.

Incumbent members of the House and Senate complain that they have to spend a third or more of their working hours raising money for their next elections. To help with this task, lobbyists have become campaign treasurers and fundraisers for members and have been responsible for scores of millions in political contributions.

Cassidy understands the low regard many Americans have for his profession but thinks it is unfair. "Lobbying is no more perfect than is the practice of law or the practice of medicine," he observed -- implying that it is no worse, either. He prides himself on his firm's "tradition of ethics and integrity," trumpeted on the firm's Web site. Since 1988, Cassidy's lawyers have given his employees annual ethics seminars.

delax

07-13 05:17 PM

Delax, EB1 with PD 2008 is getting their GC within months not because they utilize an 100% spill over from 'somewhere'. It is just because they do not have enough applicants in the queue and hence no retrogression.

Honestly, 'i don't think' the 'advantage' that EB3 and EB2 have - using spillover from other categories. Correct me if I was wrong.

willwin - What we are essentially saying is to artificially retrogress EB2 than it otherwise would have so that an EB3 who is waiting for 7 years gets his GC first - thats really what the spillover break up will do. Similarly an argument can be made to artificially retrogress EB1 so that an EB2 who is waiting for 4 years gets his GC first. Whether EB1 is presently retrogressed or not doesn't matter. Let's think about this for a moment. We are trying to completely negate the category preference established by law and asking them to grant GC's based solely on PD regardless of category. Ain't gonna happen - dont want to be a pessimist but at some point we have to call it as we see it.

indio0617

09-26 10:13 AM

Though I like Obama as a person who promises positive change, I am afraid this will turn into disaster for all of us. Obama in white house to me translates into 'Curtains' for all legal high skilled immigration.

If all of you had watched the drama unfolding last year with CIR and Durbin's proposed draconic measures you will all know what is in store for us. We all know who will be pulling the strings as far as immigration policy making goes with democrats in the white house.